Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

[related sidetrack] The mods gave a slew of yellow cards to some of us for being off topic in a Trump thread. A number of people didn't realize they were off topic. This thread is ripe for people not knowing what belongs here and what belongs in the Trump and all things Russia thread.

The hypothesis put forward did not help clarify what would be off topic in this thread; it was too far-fetched to be relatable. [/end related sidetrack]

As I said, it depends on what the charges are. If you need more than that, the easy answer is that until the charges are announced, speculation about what they might be is entirely on topic. After they're announced, what's actually relevant then will depend on what they actually are. Likely, speculation about potential related future charges will also be considered on topic to a fair degree, too.

It's about a condo deal - there's evidence the Trumps inflated the occupancy rate to make people think the units were selling quickly. It was a New York state case. Ultimately the district attorney said there was not enough evidence to prosecute. That same district attorney was receiving political donations from the Trumps' lawyer. (Which he supposedly returned.) There was one Russian invested in the deal who had earlier been a violent racketeer.

No, I doubt it's in the scope of Mueller's investigation, and it's a state case anyway. I'm putting this in the Mueller thread, just because it shows a pretty close brush with the law on the part of the Trump kids, and because one partner was a violent ex-Soviet racketeer. It shows a small part of the pattern in the Trump Organization, of dodgy Russian partners and deceptive marketing.

ETA: I'm under the impression that Mueller has pretty broad powers regarding the investigation.

I'm up late because I can't sleep, but Trump might be firing up his Twitter thingy pretty soon to trash Mueller, claim it's fake news and tie this to crooked Hillary.

If he hasn't already.

ETA: According to Fox News, Mueller is facing pressure from Republicans to resign.

Also WSJ editorial board:

Quote:

It is no slur against Mr. Mueller’s integrity to say that he lacks the critical distance to conduct a credible probe of the bureau he ran for a dozen years. He could best serve the country by resigning to prevent further political turmoil over that conflict of interest.”

When he was appointed wasn't everyone praising his rock-solid integrity? Newt Gingrich called him a "superb choice" but soon after was railing against him. What changed, I wonder.

The tweet storm has begun. He's pulling out the Uranium canard and blathering on about e-mails. He seems very unhappy; clearly this is causing him a great deal of suffering. I do so enjoy it when Donald Trump suffers.

The tweet storm has begun. He's pulling out the Uranium canard and blathering on about e-mails. He seems very unhappy; clearly this is causing him a great deal of suffering. I do so enjoy it when Donald Trump suffers.

Has anyone ever asked why he tweets this rather than calling sessions and giving an order?

The tweet storm has begun. He's pulling out the Uranium canard and blathering on about e-mails. He seems very unhappy; clearly this is causing him a great deal of suffering. I do so enjoy it when Donald Trump suffers.

There was also a tinge of, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" to it. There's also this observation on the thing:

The tweet storm has begun. He's pulling out the Uranium canard and blathering on about e-mails. He seems very unhappy; clearly this is causing him a great deal of suffering. I do so enjoy it when Donald Trump suffers.

As I said, it depends on what the charges are. If you need more than that, the easy answer is that until the charges are announced, speculation about what they might be is entirely on topic. After they're announced, what's actually relevant then will depend on what they actually are. Likely, speculation about potential related future charges will also be considered on topic to a fair degree, too.

__________________"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriadhttp://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

I know this is off topic, but while I greatly admire the bicyclist actions, I am surprised that the Secret Service allowed someone to get that close to the presidential motorcade.

Normally (at least here in Chicago when Obama was visiting,) they usually block ALL other traffic from the segment of the road the motorcade was travelling down (which was always fun during rush hour...)

The tweet storm has begun. He's pulling out the Uranium canard and blathering on about e-mails. He seems very unhappy; clearly this is causing him a great deal of suffering. I do so enjoy it when Donald Trump suffers.

Suffering? He's in the zone. Attention city.

__________________"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Mueller is stealing attention away from Trump, and will continue to do so.
I am convinced that on some level Trump thinks he has to win the media battle about Russia to avoid legal fallout. [because Trump has to win everything]

Well, itís simply fun to watch the reactions of people who couldnít care less about the law. They ask for a serious answer when itís quite obvious when one is just having a little fun with their emotions.

I know you're trolling, I'm asking you to answer my question: do you think your amusement in these matters is more important than the government doing a good job and protecting its citizens? This should be a simple yes or no.

Umm, I don't think you need a judge for an arrest warrant, the prosecuting attorneys issue official charges. And it's pretty easy for the prosecutor to get a Grand Jury to indict. They present a case with no defense allowed. No one is there to object to evidence or questioning.

In NY the foreperson of the jury takes the charges the grand jury found to a judge for the official indictment.

Depends on what the charges actually are. The Trumps (plural) helping the Iranian Guard launder money through the Trump Tower in Azerbaijan, for example, would likely not be as much about Trump's relationships to Russia. The President himself is nigh immune to charges, but the rest of the family is not.

That is legally unclear. The laws on the president to not explicitly say one way or the other and it has never been put to legal challenge to establish precedent. Ken Starr seemed to think you could indict a sitting president.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.